2nd Edition and Seize by Force (and similar moves)

Muddled and overlapping makes total sense to me. I could see that happening, definitely. Very interesting!

I can see how the current version of the rules can suggest further fighting (although perhaps only in relatively "balanced" fights; a dominant PC seems to be in a strong position to finish fights even on a missed roll). The Pyrrhic victory... I see that less. The only "Pyrrhic" possibility I'm seeing in the design of the move is calculating the tradeoffs involved in the exchange of harm. With groups in battle, that can turn into deaths and combatants lost - that's an example of a Pyrrhic victory.

What I'm even less certain about is how this design does that better than previous versions.

And isn't a Pyrrhic victory more of a 7-9 kind of outcome?

It would help you understand the move better, I think, if you did the math on those other hypotheticals I recommended.

And isn't a Pyrrhic victory more of a 7-9 kind of outcome?

Lord no!

You're making that idea up out of your own head, with no reference to the game as it really works.

-Vincent

Ok, now you've lost me again! (Sorry, Vincent!)

Doing the math may be helpful, indeed, but isn't that precisely what I referenced in my post (that the "weight" of the move comes from the harm calculation)? Nothing wrong with that; I just thought I already addressed that in my post. (So, for instance, in a situation where the harm calculus favours the PC dramatically, there isn't really another or different angle.)

As for the Pyrrhic victory, I don't really know what you mean. Isn't, for instance, a "worse outcome or a hard bargain" a perfect example of a Pyrrhic victory?

(Although it seems that, in the case of this move - as well as Single Combat - it's the harm calculus which effectively settles the question, moreso than the roll.)

A pyrrhic victory is one in which the cost was so high that the victory itself is pointless. In other words, only a victory by technicality (e.g. You captured the generator...but your gang died in the process, so you don't need the electricity anymore). Which would only be fair in the case of a miss: A 7-9 is fundamentally a victory, while a pyrrhic victory is fundamentally failure.

Bingo.

Furthermore, there's no such thing in Apocalypse World as "a 7-9 kind of outcome," to which any given move ought to hold. The moves should and do vary wildly in what they give and what they cost, on each roll. Acting under fire, for instance, doesn't set a standard for other moves, it's just its own self, with its own context and its own needs.

Paul! I have a sixth new hypothetical for you to do the math on:
- The PC savvyhead has grabbed the PC brainer's pain wave projecter (disarmed) without asking, and now they're fighting over it, heavy-ass wrench vs scalpel.

-Vincent

Ok, that's fair. I think the design of many moves, and particularly the MC moves, as well as the examples in the book, generally tend to "Pyrrhic victories" falling more often under the domain of 7-9 results, but they can occur, in some cases, on 10+ outcomes or misses, as well. It depends, as you say, on the move and on the fictional situation. (For a simple example, if you were really hoping not to hurt Toyota, and you end up having to "go aggro" to get what you want, then rolling a 10+ might be the worst thing for you - Toyota could choose to 'suck it up' and end up hurt or dead.)

Now, I'll work through this example; it sounds interesting. 

Let's say the Savvyhead and Brainer both have Hard=0. I'm guessing a wrench is 2-harm, whereas a Brainer's scalpels are 3-harm (but intimate). Clearly, the Savvyhead wants to take pain wave projector, and is willing to take harm to do so. Same for the Brainer.

Now, I don't know who's the aggressor here, but I'll go with the character who's at a disadvantage first (assuming a wrench is 2-harm).

1. The Savvyhead is Seizing by Force. On a 10+, he might grab the projector and come out ahead in terms of harm (3 points to the Brainer, 2 to him), whereas on a 7-9, he gets the thing but they both take 2- or 3-harm. (Perhaps if the Brainer is cowardly, he might see greater benefit in "dismaying" him, too.) All clear victories, but painful.

On a miss, though, by the old rules things would go against him. Perhaps the MC would offer an opportunity for the Brainer to set off the projector, for instance.

By the new rules, he must choose 1. If he chooses to "take definite hold", he does so, and deals 2-harm to the Brainer, while taking 3-harm. Seems like a reasonable deal - after all, he was prepared to engage in the move in the first place, so he was expecting to get hurt. The very best possible outcome was him taking 2-harm, so taking 3-harm instead doesn't seem (to me) to make a huge difference unless he was, say, at 9:00 harm already.

I don't really see him choosing not to take the thing - after all, if he hands it over, the Brainer could likely kill him with it! Better suck up an additional point of harm.

2. What if it was the Brainer making the move?

The math is similar, except with better harm odds for the Brainer. He's facing 1- or 2-harm (not likely a huge difference, I'd think), and dealing 3- or 4-harm. That's getting into "could kill someone" territory, so that could be interesting if the Savvyhead is already wounded. Killing him would be likely a better deal than grabbing the projector.

On a miss, the Brainer deals 3-harm, suffers 2-harm, and grabs the projector.

Either way, the active party seems almost certain to end up with the device.

Am I doing it right?

Is the idea to make the active party more or less successful by default? To give more agency to being the aggressor in battle situations?

I don't particularly see how the new version is more likely to lead to further fighting or a Pyrrhic outcome. Is it just that we're *always* going to have an exchange of harm, which means that they now have a tough choice facing them if they want to fight further (both being heavily hurt)?

I see simplicity in execution, in that the MC doesn't have to wrack her brains for a miss result, and more predictability. I believe that's what I've been saying all along. However, it could get pretty interesting once death is on the line (if, say, they now go at it a second time). There also seems to be a tremendous advantage given to the active party, whereas under the old rules you risked a painful miss. (As in the first example, getting hit by the pain projector before you get a blow in with your wrench.)

Looking forward to your thoughts (anyone)!

Both roll the move simultaneously.

-Vincent

Both roll the move simultaneously.

That's new.

I also feel like it lends itself to an ambiguous result - what if they both succeed and both decide to take definite hold of the pain-wave projector? Who actually gets it? Or is your point that neither one gets it and they are therefore still "in battle" and you'd roll again?

I guess I should 'fess up that I'm not a huge fan of "roll again" kinds of moves. The single combat battle move leaves me cold for this exact reason. I get what it's trying to model - two foes locked in combat until one of them blinks - I just think the way it goes about it feels a little odd and clunky, especially in comparison to how the rest of AW works in terms of fiction-changing resolution of moves.

If both take definite hold, they cancel out, same as if one chooses to inflict +1 harm and the other chooses to suffer -1 harm. It's the same as if neither had chosen to take definite hold (except that both of them spent 1 of their choices to do it).

They might still be in battle, sure, sometimes, but the rule is NOT "it's inconclusive so roll again."

So do your best not to bring single combat into your understanding of it! Despite the superficial similarities, they don't work the same way at all.

-Vincent

Ah! Interesting.

Well, if you're rolling both at the same time, it definitely makes sense to have a defined miss result, or it just gets awkward. I hadn't thought of that.

Is this new design of the move intended to mimic some of your other "battle" moves in other games, then? Like how in Freebooting... you bid for winning the match? (Except that here you're not allowed to bid more than one, effectively.)

I haven't had this come up in my games, so now I'm in purely conjectural territory. My intuitive response is the same as Munin's, above.

What makes this fun/exciting at the table? Are we missing something?

For instance, is the Single Combat move terribly different from having each roll for damage against the other?

What drove this design concept, in other words?

This has been around for years guys, since early AW1. Rolling PvP seize by force only occurs fictionally if both are willing to go to battle for it (both aiming to harm the other over the thing). Basically if both are, then the other is defending something by force. And players should roll together over something like this, choose their options, and let the MC narrate if shit isn't clear. Again, standard practice, I was taught this within my first few days on the forum some 2+ years back.

Actually this is the best argument yet for NOT having miss conditions. They sort of gummed up the works here when the players really should be taking the narrative reigns. The miss condition in AW1 was clunky and ignored on multiple occasions within my group when it arouse during PvP. It really was awkward to have to come up with a move during times when there was plenty enough happening as it were.

Apparently my games had a lot more PvP then most from the sounds of things.

Paul, next do the one where the driver's punching through a (npc) gang blockade. Be sure to use the rules for when vehicles suffer harm. Think through at least a few variations, like different vehicles, different gangs, different choices on the driver's part. Forget about the battlebabe.

In each variation, think up (a) the MC's possible next moves, and (b) the driver's next moves in answer.

-Vincent

I would... but I have no idea how to. It sounds pretty daunting!

(Ebok: To be clear, I agree with you on that 100%. A defined miss is far superior for PvP situations where both parties roll.)

Oh, let's do it together then.

Somebody give me a 1-line gang writeup and tags?

Somebody else give me the same for a driver and a car?

-Vincent

Great. I'll start with the gang.

3-harm gang medium well-disciplined 1-armor - want: savagery

Is that what you were looking for? I figure this is about 40 rough customers, with varied and extensive weapons, and they're disciplined but barely holding on to that discipline.